Smith v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'It is well settled that the decision whether to enter a Rule 41(b) [, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] dismissal is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such a dismissal will be reversed only if the trial court exceeded its discretion. Atkins v. Shirley , 561 So.2d 1075 , 1077 (Ala. 1990) ; Riddlesprigger v. Ervin , 519 So.2d 486 , 487 (Ala. 1987) ; State ex rel. S.M. v. A.H. , 832 So.2d 79 , 80 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) ; and Coulter v. Stewart , 726 So.2d 726 , 728 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). However, because dismissal with prejudice is a drastic sanction, it should be applied only in extreme situations. Smith v. Wilcox County Bd. of Educ. , 365 So.2d 659 , 661 (Ala. 1978). Therefore, this court will carefully scrutinize orders dismissing an action with prejudice and occasionally will find it necessary to set them aside. Id. In reviewing the trial court's dismissal of an action, we must determine whether the ruling is supported by the evidence contained in the record. Nash v. Cosby , 597 So.2d 209 , 210 (Ala. 1992) ; Atkins v. Shirley , 561 So.2d at 1077 ; and Riddlesprigger v. Ervin , 519 So.2d at 487 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 60 So. 3d 891 - Tucker v. Tucker · 252 So. 3d 683 - Colvin v. Ampro Prods., Inc. (Ex parte Ampro Prods., Inc.)

2. “' Selby v. Money , 403 So.2d 218 , 220-21 (Ala. 1981) ; see also Burton v. Allen , 628 So.2d 814 , 815 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).' " HICA Educ. Loan Corp. v. Fielding , 953 So.2d 1261 , 1263 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). Thus, in order to dismiss Smith's action and to enter a judgment in favor of Davidson on his claims, the trial court must have had evidence from which it could infer that Smith's failure to comply with Davidson's discovery requests and the trial court's orders was the result of Smith's conscious or intentional failure to act, not his accidental or involuntary noncompliance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. C.L. Smith Auto Sales, LLC v. David Bulger, Inc.